Bring it forward

by David Forbes September 16, 2015

Communities bring forward a mix of topics — from saving a downtown forest to cat cafes — with varying reactions from Council

Above: Vice Mayor Marc Hunt. File photo by Max Cooper.

With the huge fight over short-term rentals dying down (at least for a bit), the Sept. 8 Asheville City Council meeting wasn’t quite as much of a political brawl as the one that proceeded it. There were no packed chambers and comparatively few heated speeches.

But what distinguished this meeting were a number of topics brought forward by various communities, from a non-profit seeking more options for getting cats adopted to clashes over the future of a local church to locals pushing to save an urban forest, Council’s agenda that evening was dominated by matter brought forward by different communities, each trying to pursue their idea of an improved Asheville.

Going to the cats

For Brother Wolf, a local animal rescue non-profit, that step was a change in the city’s zoning rules to allow a “cat cafe,” a combination of a no-kill shelter and associated retail sales.

“The cat cafe model started in Taiwan in 1998 and has since spread to North America with a cat cafe in Montreal in 2014,” planner Vaidila Satvika told Council. “They’re partnering with local shelters to showcase adoptable cats.”

But in downtown at least, businesses focusing on animals are prohibited, except for veterinary clinics and kennels. So, Satvika elaborated, staff recommended adding rules allowing the sort of cat cafe Brother Wolf was seeking.

Council had no questions, nor did the public, as no one spoke during the time allotted for the hearing.

“As a longtime cat owner/companion and noting the number of dog bakeries in town, I think this is long overdue,” Council member Cecil Bothwell said. Council unanimously lined up behind supporting feline adoption, with Mayor Esther Manheimer asking that her colleagues meow to indicate their support.

The church and the neighborhood

The next matter wouldn’t quite have the same light-hearted feel. Like most churches, Bethesda United Methodist, based in Haw Creek, has had some hard times, facing declining attendance. Four congregations now use the same building and according to its pastors, some major changes were needed to keep the institution viable.

So the church was bringing forward a proposal to add a kitchen, maker space, office space and ten tiny homes for seminary students who would also learn how to build tiny homes as part of a larger educational program. The goal, according to Rev. Larry Duggins was to “allow the formations of a new kind of Christian community” and “making changes to allow community formation in the way that people form communities today.”

“This is a reaction to the fact that people used to form community around church activities and they just don’t do that anymore,” Duggins added later. “Now they form community around work, around food, around their children’s schools and around recreational activities that they share with one another. This project is nothing more and nothing less than an attempt to repurpose the church building to match the way people form community today and to do that in a way that enhances the community.”

In addition, the church would provide people space for food prep for products for their home businesses and provide more services to help students at nearby Haw Creek Elementary. The church needed approval from the city for an exception to the usual buffer rules so they wouldn’t have to relocate a graveyard on the site.

“We want our students to experience community living in a monastic, austere kind of environment in which we can teach the theology of sufficiency: how much is enough for an individual,” Duggins said, adding that he believed tiny homes had “great potential” to address a variety of housing challenges. The church had, he noted, held four community meetings with Haw Creek residents, and had received a number of letters of support.

But if the church leaders viewed this as a way to serve the public while keeping their institution viable, some of the neighbors were less than enthusiastic. Some were concerned that other churches int eh area facing similar challenges could also convert to live/work spaces, worried that it would set a dangerous precedent.

“We’ve had wonderful relations with Bethesda,” Barber Melton, a board member of the Haw Creek Community Association, said, but after the community meetings felt there were too many unanswered questions about the size of the tiny homes and the changes to the property. “The community meetings were well attended; there was not a single person there who was in favor of it. The last meeting had to be shut down because it got out of hand.”

She asked Council to “consider the neighborhood” before their vote. “I understand they’re trying to save their church, I’d do the same thing. But these 10 tiny homes are not sustainable and not what we need.”

Joel Bligh, whose son lives in a home he owns nearby the church, dubbed the tiny homes “a trailer park” and was worried bears in the nearby woods would pose a danger to students at the school. “This is a really bad idea,” he added.

But Margaret King, a member of Bethesda, asserted that the church had a long history as a community center. Faced with possible closure, she was one of the parishioners who approached the United Methodist Church about a way to keep it open.

“It is a place of worship, and it’s also a community center,” she said. “It’s exciting the things that are happening in this church.”

After the public hearing, Satvika told Council that only 10 percent of the space would be used for commercial activity, well under the 25 percent allowed under the site’s current zoning.

For Council, the rub came in where the construction of the tiny homes, as part of the church’s educational program (the homes would be donated to charities afterwards), would take place, with a majority asserting that it needed to happen elsewhere.

Council member Chris Pelly, a Haw Creek resident, voiced his support for the project and asserted that there was enough space that the construction during business hours was unlikely to disturb neighbors.

But Vice Mayor Marc Hunt had misgivings.

“I’m going to express a little bit of concern,” he said. “This would be a production facility. We’re still talking primarily about a residential neighborhood. I think when neighbors hear the noise of construction, they expect that it’s going to be temporary. Here we’re talking about a cyclical sort of thing.”

Duggins told Hunt that they would take every effort to mitigate noise, with high walls around the construction area, and it was planned as part of the church’s educational program, and its absence would “remove a teaching component.”

Hunt proceeded to push to approve the project, but require that the tiny homes be built elsewhere.

Pelly replied that the noise didn’t seem to be an issue that neighbors critical of the project had raised.

Hunt said he wanted to limit what could be done in residential neighborhoods.

“I really appreciate how innovative this project is: a conception of how to better bring communities together,” Council member Gordon Smith said, but “identifying an alternative site for swinging those hammers is something that will benefit everything else you’re trying to do.”

Pelly noted that Haw Creek had “a relatively limited number of places to gather” outside of private homes and he felt the changes to Bethesda will help meet that need.

Hunt’s amendment passed 6-1, with Pelly against. Approval of the project, with that change, then passed unanimously.

A forest in the city

The last topic wasn’t on the agenda, at least not officially, but occupied more time than many of Council’s public hearings. In response to a proposal by Wilmington-based Tribute Companies to build apartments on a South Slope plot on Collier Avenue, a group of neighbors rallied to ask the city to help with a land swap or other deal to preserve a forest currently on the site, the last in downtown.

Inge Durre, speaking on behalf of the group of locals seeking to preserve the forest (many wearing green shirts) told Council that it was imperative.

“These trees serve the citizens of the immediate area and the entire city,” she said. “Not only has the property owner agreed with us on the importance of a preservation effort, he has agreed to consider affordable housing on a different site if City Council agrees to a property exchange.”

She also cited a lack of green space in the South Slope area as another reason for approval. While the supporters of the move stand ready to fundraise, Durre said, she also added that the city’s support was necessary for the effort to succeed. The Asheville-Buncombe Preservation Society, the city’s Tree Commission and the local Sierra Club all support the effort. An online petition gathered over 1,000 signatures.

Imke Durre encouraged the city to work out a “win-win” deal with the developer to make such preservation a reality.

David Johnson, a retired ecology professor, said the oak trees on the site were as much a part of the city’s fabric as historic buildings and the city should move to preserve them.

South Slope resident Andy Clark said that “every great city in this country has great trees they revere” and that the patch represented 10 percent of the total trees downtown. Activist Steve Rasmussen asserted such a move was essential for the city to “preserve its livability as we try to find more ways to wedge more people into our ever more popular downtown area” and for the city to live up to its touted status as a Tree City.

Bothwell voiced his support for the idea saying that since he moved inside the city limits in 2002, “I’ve seen the trees disappear here.”

“Just lately, with the hotel going up across the street from the Grove Arcade, the first thing they did was cut down all the trees in the parking lot,” Bothwell said. “You can’t replace old trees, there’ s just no way to do it. I would hope we can find some way to facilitate this, whether it’s through a land swap, whether it’s helping to facilitate raising private funds to purchase this. There are ways to go about this and if the developer’s willing to hold off and talk about this a little longer, I think we can find some way to do it.”

“While we have these trees there, it seems crazy to try to create a woodland somewhere else,” he added.

But Hunt, while noting he believed the site was “special,” said that the onus was on the project’s supporters to help make such a park happen. Citing efforts in West Asheville and Haw Creek, Hunt said this was in his experience the best route.

“What I came to realize was that the city leaders are not really the best on these issue to go out and raise money and get things done,” he said. “Affordability for the city and for our taxpayers is really important. We’ve got a lot of other priorities that are really stretching us, now more than ever.”

“I think that there’s a great challenge to the grassroots organizers here to realize that there’s a fundraising challenge here,” he continued. “I’m frankly not comfortable with the proposition that the city figure out how to fund all of it. This really needs to be a community effort.”

Smith asked where the project was, and what the developer was open to. Pelly replied that he had spoken with the developer and they were open to a land swap and had even identified a number of possible city-owned properties.

“I’d like to learn a lot more here,” Smith continued, noting he especially wanted more information about the affordable housing possibility.

“They’re willing to let the process work for a little while,” Pelly noted.

“Staff’s got tons of stuff but within reason I’d support staff meeting this developer to see if there is a way to carry forward,” Council member Jan Davis said.

“It’s time to start getting pledges and commitments if we’re going to be a partner in this,” Pelly told the forest supporters. “We can’t do it alone.”

“Our capacity as a city to do all the negotiations and due diligence is rather limited,” Hunt continued. “There’s an important role for the private sector and advocates to play in shaping this project.”

The Asheville Blade is entirely funded by its readers. If you like our work, donate directly to us on Patreon. Questions? Comments? Email us.